Carl, for a long time I have been curious about your methods and meaning. Most of the time, when I read you---that is when you are making biting statements expressed humoristically, ironically---I don't quite make a connection to what you are trying to say. Sometimes, I get the impression your object is to irritate, and what you say is merely a poking, with a sort of maliciousness, for your own purposes. In the above example it would appear that you want to point out, to accentuate, that brokenhead is a Christian believer, and that he participates in Christianity expressed communally----but what is the point of this? What sort of light does this cast on what he wrote? Since we already know that? Should he say, 'Yes, I just got back from church', and leave it at that? Or do you mean that he defends a Christian activity, such as Gospel celebration and preaching, because he himself is a participant in it? (The relationship with Christianity I mean, not Gospel or preaching). What is the point you want to make, and what form could response take?_______________________________________________

I include Gospel films from time to time because it offers a counterbalance to the excessive headiness of this forum's approach, speaking generally. I really do love Gospel, there is no doubt of that, but it is not exactly that I am advocating its specific message, but rather that it interests me how people use their knowledge, their interpretation of life and meaning, and if this body of knowledge leads them, influences them, guides them, carries them, induces them, to feel good about themselves, to feel they are positive actors in their environment, in their physical, mental and emotional frame. As anyone who reads me knows by now I am of the opinion that the style of mentation, of severing of connection to life as it is, to our physical, embodied selves, as it is recommended (and undertaken) by our fearless wisdom-brats, will very likely lead to mental and emotional breakdown. I see this and state this as simply a fact, and a somewhat obvious fact. Something is missing, and to locate that something would seem tome a pretty important objective.

So, to show---not just to mention or allude to but to show---people whose knowledge and commitment is converted also into physical happiness, a happiness, a eudemonia, that flows like warm blood all through their whole system, seems to me quite relevant.

CG Jung said something very interesting about belief systems, and he was speaking about the modern one that arises from scientific materialism, that sees no purpose in life, no conscious order to existence, no reason for anything, and purposelessness in human consciousness, as leading to a schism in the soul of man. To alienation, dislocation, atomization. Never has there arisen such a belief-system since all mythologies tend to contain us, to shelter us if you will.

To discover, and also to protect, a 'conceptual pathway' that allows for the recognition of a personal God and a personal purpose, has obvious relevancy to the psychological well being of the individual.

And what then is ultimately true? You'd almost have to say that the believe in a personal God is both true and untrue, insofar as their is obviously an utterly abstract aspect to life (the cosmos) as well as ample evidence of personalism almost at every turn.

Alex Jacob wrote:Carl, for a long time I have been curious about your methods and meaning. Most of the time, when I read you---that is when you are making biting statements expressed humoristically, ironically---I don't quite make a connection to what you are trying to say. Sometimes, I get the impression your object is to irritate, and what you say is merely a poking, with a sort of maliciousness, for your own purposes.

Okay.

In the above example it would appear that you want to point out, to accentuate, that brokenhead is a Christian believer, and that he participates in Christianity expressed communally----but what is the point of this?

I assumed Broken went to church with his family since he rarely posts on Sundays. Beyond that I was commenting on his anger, in that post and increasingly, it seems, of late -- my perception of course -- juxtaposing that with the message of love which I equate with the Christian Way, and which I wondered if he had just come from hearing. I agree that it wasn't a great point, and it did somewhat misfire in execution, as these things occasionally do.

What sort of light does this cast on what he wrote? Since we already know that? Should he say, 'Yes, I just got back from church', and leave it at that? Or do you mean that he defends a Christian activity, such as Gospel celebration and preaching, because he himself is a participant in it? (The relationship with Christianity I mean, not Gospel or preaching). What is the point you want to make, and what form could response take?

Thanks for asking! I hope I answered well enough above.

By the way, I hope you notice that I am a defender of true Christianity and consider myself a Christian.

"By the way, I hope you notice that I am a defender of true Christianity and consider myself a Christian."

I would never, ever have known that nor have guessed it.

My take on GFs is that one's 'truths', one's sincere, inner beliefs, cannot be expressed since the whole purpose here is a sort of 'brutal' truth-telling, the willingness to get 'bloodied' and to bloody others as one is destroying one's own 'ego' and that of the other. I am not complaining, but I do think that the contentious atmosphere works at counter-purposes to understanding between people, and also possibly against 'truth', such a hard thing to define.

Myself, I never paid too much attention to Christianity, until recently. But recently I have begun a more serious investigation of it, starting from the historical roots in Palestine, the conditions at that time, the occupation, the conflict with religious legalism. It is going to take at least a year to get the knowledge and understanding that I'd like to have.

Where does bona fide Christianity begin for you?

In regard to broken, I remember reading very clearly that he was raised a Catholic and then completely broke away from it, forged his own relationship with Christianity. It would seem that, unless there is something he omitted, he is a solo-practitioner.

At first blush, I'd say that even if there were anger in his post, above, or in other posts of his, that this anger is not counter-productive to Christian love, or not opposite to it. You could, of course, deeply love someone and still be quite angry with them.

The mood seems more frustration, if you were to ask me. Quinn, Rowden and Solway show themselves as completely unwilling and incapable of budging from their concretized position(s). That, in itself, is not necessarily a bad thing, yet it seems more a team sport of maintaining a facade than it does at really understanding, and knowing, 'truth'. It is quite frustrating to talk with them, sometimes.

Alex Jacob wrote:...that brokenhead is a Christian believer, and that he participates in Christianity expressed communally----but what is the point of this? What sort of light does this cast on what he wrote? Since we already know that?

But you can't already know that I participate communally, since I don't. See my post above. Or any of the dozens of other posts in which I say the same thing.

PS - Be careful, Alex, he just may try to marshal support (from Cory, Diebert, Carl, Foresta Gump etc.) and get you kicked off Genius Forums...

And that could indeed happen, as Alex does not enjoy being in good graces with the 3 admins like you do. Even Dan, who is the friendliest of the 3, does not seem to like Alex.

-

I don't know that Tomas is in especially good graces with anyone, but it is surprising to see him around this long after the closure of "worldly matters", be it on his own recognizance or the administrator's. His contributions are mildly entertaining at best, which I guess is slightly better than Alex attempting to suck the life out of the forum.

You are like someone sitting in a math class watching the teacher draw out his equations on the chalk board, then you abruptly raise your hand and say; math would be so much prettier if you used pink chalk instead of white.

Well, it begins with the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." From there it goes into esoteric Christianity as expressed by such as Kierkegaard and Gurdjieff, the latter at least based on Gnostic and Essene sources, which merge with Sufism and Taoism among others on the way down to the central root of all religion.

"You are like someone sitting in a math class watching the teacher draw out his equations on the chalk board, then you abruptly raise your hand and say; math would be so much prettier if you used pink chalk instead of white."

I don't feel much relationship to what you've written, your characterization. Can you speak more concretely? Use an example, if you can.

Life is not discussable in equations, it is not presentable as an equation. Maybe this is a point for the first opposition?

If the Genius Forum is the 'teacher', and I suppose you are one of those teachers, your analogy might have relevance but not because I object to the color of the chalk, but rather to the core substance of the discourse, the initial premises. There is a pretty large difference. Can you at least see this?

I am very much in favor though of being strong and committed to what one believes. Why do you ask that it be so easy for you? Can you not accept or handle any opposition?

Alex Jacob wrote:I don't feel much relationship to what you've written, your characterization. Can you speak more concretely? Use an example, if you can.

Ok, here you wrote:

My take on GFs is that one's 'truths', one's sincere, inner beliefs, cannot be expressed since the whole purpose here is a sort of 'brutal' truth-telling, the willingness to get 'bloodied' and to bloody others as one is destroying one's own 'ego' and that of the other. I am not complaining, but I do think that the contentious atmosphere works at counter-purposes to understanding between people, and also possibly against 'truth', such a hard thing to define.

You say the forum is contentious without even understanding what supposedly causes this contentiousness. So you don't understand let alone respect the foundation of the forum, and then you find fault with it because of what one can only assume to be the forum's lack of consideration for one's ego. You are missing the point.

Alex Jacob wrote:If the Genius Forum is the 'teacher', and I suppose you are one of those teachers, your analogy might have relevance but not because I object to the color of the chalk, but rather to the core substance of the discourse, the initial premises. There is a pretty large difference. Can you at least see this?

But the chalk is all you see! For whatever reason you can't see beneath the surface of this forum, as even you yourself alluded to in the example I gave above. I can't say I blame you though because even the surface of this forum is infinitely deeper than the depths of most human discourse.

Alex Jacob wrote:I am very much in favor though of being strong and committed to what one believes. Why do you ask that it be so easy for you? Can you not accept or handle any opposition?

And I am strongly committed to the truth. Why wouldn't I want to make things easier for myself? This is not a very contentious forum at heart, so opposition is just a waste of time. Especially after it has worn out it's stay. At best it can be made an example of and then discarded.

Alex Jacob wrote:Why is it that some people intinctively differ? Ever wondered?

There are infinite causes as to why this is the case, and using the word instinctively is meaningless.

By the way, I hope you notice that I am a defender of true Christianity and consider myself a Christian.

Huh!

Well, it begins with the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." From there it goes into esoteric Christianity as expressed by such as Kierkegaard and Gurdjieff, the latter at least based on Gnostic and Essene sources, which merge with Sufism and Taoism among others on the way down to the central root of all religion.

If you asked me, I would say that y'all get heavily invested in just a new layer of the 'ego' you wish to demolish.

I could embellish the above but, if you asked me, this is how I would sum-up a significant faction on this forum.

Now, put yourself in my shoes: You are being talked to by someone who has absolutely no doubt of the righteousness of their position, yet you see so many flaws in it, and so many mistaken conclusions as a result of it, yet they see you as a problem, as someone failing the philosophical challenge. What are you going to do?

It is not at all a bad thing to have contention, discussion, argument, dialectic---I personally love it---and yet what if you have a whole forum of acute ego-maniacs who yet suppose they are God's gift to wisdom, who hold the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, who know what is true and what is false, etcetera. You can't recognize this, but you come into this conversation under a false premise, and consequently you become a member of a cabal that seeks to enforce uniformity to dogma. Well,, it looks that way to me sometimes.

"For whatever reason you can't see beneath the surface of this forum, as even you yourself alluded to in the example I gave above. I can't say I blame you though because even the surface of this forum is infinitely deeper than the depths of most human discourse."

Does it require mystical vision to 'see beneath the surface' of this forum? Is there some hidden area I have not yet discovered? Or, in each of you, is there some hidden truths that you won't reveal, at least not to non-initiates? I am completely in agreement with you that common discourse is very, very empty, but most likely I have different understanding of how this has come about, but at the same time I do not read here on these pages too much of anything that reveals a greater connection to 'depth', as I have learned to understand it and appreciate it, and on another level, to serve. Is it possible that what you call 'depth' I understand as shallowness? And also, what I call 'depth' you can only perceive is shallowness?

Ah, and what does this avail us? In the best of circumstances it could open up into a discussion about differing values, differing interpretations of the worth of life, and that can be a productive conversation, yes, but in most cases only if the conversational partner is not so arrogant as to assume that all his or her ideas are absolutely correct, that he or she is not a spokesman for some 'absolute truth'. The basis, then, of the conversation is an exchange of ideas and rises to the level of 'conversation'.

I think it is pretty clear that in your case---as someone who has internalized the values of the forum as modus operandi---you have no other choice but to demolish all that I say here as pure ego construct.

But, you said that I am 'sucking the life-force out of the forum', a pretty serious (and very poetic) image. Is it really true?

David Quinn wrote:There is only a hairs-breadth difference between spiritual black gospel singing and angry, violent rap.

dejavu wrote:And what is that hairs-breadth difference David?

Dan Rowden wrote:Rap is about something nominally real.

DQ wrote:Circumstance.

You are obviously both wrong, Dan and David. Or should I say obliviously wrong.

What is this circumstance of which you speak, David? The harsh realities of inner city life versus the lush comfort and security of the slave life on the American plantation where the Negro Spiritual was born?

Both gospel and rap are 100% emotional and appeal to what is most base in humans. It is pure animal expression. Gospel is hysterical in nature and utterly depraved, while rap is violent in nature and equally depraved.

"Both gospel and rap are 100% emotional and appeal to what is most base in humans. It is pure animal expression. Gospel is hysterical in nature and utterly depraved, while rap is violent in nature and equally depraved. Both emanate out of black African mindlessness and impotency. I can't find a single redeeming feature in either of them."

Gospel is very emotional, and also sensual in its way. There is no such thing as a rational, controlled, intellectual Gospel, that's for sure. It is true that many religious expressions, and spiritualist expressions, are hysterical in the close definition of the word. But in that specific sense one would also have to view, for example, the Jewish Prophets, all that Ramakrishna ever said and did, the whole 'science' of Bhakti Yoga, various branches of Tantra, which is to say a huge portion of what happens in human beings.

Also, there are people---I know some---who are simply wired emotionally. That is really all there is to it. They don't deal with the world through their rational centers. They experience life, they seem to take things into their body, into their whole being.

You, in your branch of spirituality, instead of 'working with' all the parts of yourself, seem to just cut yourself off from it. This is not just a minor thing, a mild suppression---it is major. You propose a complete cutting oneself off from the human world. I have been reading you now for over a year and I don't think I am mistaken in what your intentions are, in what you recommend. But just as a bhakti could get very, very involved in his bhakti emotionalism, and have this expression turn into something 'hysterical' and negative, so can your excessive rationalism. The trick, I suppose, is who is undertaking it, and what they do with it.

Alex Jacob wrote:If you asked me, I would say that y'all get heavily invested in just a new layer of the 'ego' you wish to demolish.

Not just layers, the whole thing, along with every other delusion.

Alex Jacob wrote:I could embellish the above but, if you asked me, this is how I would sum-up a significant faction on this forum.

Now, put yourself in my shoes: You are being talked to by someone who has absolutely no doubt of the righteousness of their position, yet you see so many flaws in it, and so many mistaken conclusions as a result of it, yet they see you as a problem, as someone failing the philosophical challenge. What are you going to do?

If I couldn't see past the chalk I'd probably just lose interest and be on my way.

Alex Jacob wrote:It is not at all a bad thing to have contention, discussion, argument, dialectic---I personally love it---and yet what if you have a whole forum of acute ego-maniacs who yet suppose they are God's gift to wisdom, who hold the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, who know what is true and what is false, etcetera. You can't recognize this, but you come into this conversation under a false premise, and consequently you become a member of a cabal that seeks to enforce uniformity to dogma. Well,, it looks that way to me sometimes.

Yes I know Alex, you can't see past the chalk.

Alex Jacob wrote:Does it require mystical vision to 'see beneath the surface' of this forum? Is there some hidden area I have not yet discovered? Or, in each of you, is there some hidden truths that you won't reveal, at least not to non-initiates? I am completely in agreement with you that common discourse is very, very empty, but most likely I have different understanding of how this has come about, but at the same time I do not read here on these pages too much of anything that reveals a greater connection to 'depth', as I have learned to understand it and appreciate it, and on another level, to serve. Is it possible that what you call 'depth' I understand as shallowness? And also, what I call 'depth' you can only perceive is shallowness?

No mystical vision is required to realize the truth, and nearly every judgment I make of you and everything else while on this forum is in the light of truth. There is no relativity, it is all objective. In order for one to understand this they must first posses what some call Bodhicitta.

Alex Jacob wrote:Ah, and what does this avail us? In the best of circumstances it could open up into a discussion about differing values, differing interpretations of the worth of life, and that can be a productive conversation, yes, but in most cases only if the conversational partner is not so arrogant as to assume that all his or her ideas are absolutely correct, that he or she is not a spokesman for some 'absolute truth'. The basis, then, of the conversation is an exchange of ideas and rises to the level of 'conversation'.

I'm not interested in conversation for the sake of conversation. I'm interested in truth, and if you aren't then so be it. Try setting your ego and any preconceived notions you have about the members of this forum aside. Look past what you see as ego-maniacs and people so wrapped up in themselves that they've lost all touch with reality. Because as it always has been, this was never about me, you, or anyone else on this forum or planet, it's all about the truth, and if you can allow yourself this opportunity you might begin to gain a deeper understanding of what this place is about.

Alex Jacob wrote:I think it is pretty clear that in your case---as someone who has internalized the values of the forum as modus operandi---you have no other choice but to demolish all that I say here as pure ego construct.

The only choice I have is to lie or tell the truth, I prefer the latter.

Alex Jacob wrote:But, you said that I am 'sucking the life-force out of the forum', a pretty serious (and very poetic) image. Is it really true?

I believe you are attempting to in a subconscious manner. And it's not that I think you might succeed in these attempts, but like I said earlier, opposition is mostly a waste of time.

David Quinn wrote:There is only a hairs-breadth difference between spiritual black gospel singing and angry, violent rap.

dejavu wrote:And what is that hairs-breadth difference David?

Dan Rowden wrote:Rap is about something nominally real.

DQ wrote:Circumstance.

You are obviously both wrong, Dan and David. Or should I say obliviously wrong.

What is this circumstance of which you speak, David? The harsh realities of inner city life versus the lush comfort and security of the slave life on the American plantation where the Negro Spiritual was born?

Both gospel and rap are 100% emotional and appeal to what is most base in humans. It is pure animal expression. Gospel is hysterical in nature and utterly depraved, while rap is violent in nature and equally depraved.

Both emanate out of black African mindlessness and impotency.

I can't find a single redeeming feature in either of them.

-

Aaahmm, Mr Administrator sir. Excuse please if Im wrong, but do you not encourage misuse by cooperating with others in subjects unrelated to topic?

Also what can be done to stop discussions from shooting off in unintended ways. For instance, can person who began thread move the off-topic posts to other thread, new one?

"Both gospel and rap are 100% emotional and appeal to what is most base in humans. It is pure animal expression. Gospel is hysterical in nature and utterly depraved, while rap is violent in nature and equally depraved. Both emanate out of black African mindlessness and impotency. I can't find a single redeeming feature in either of them."

Gospel is very emotional, and also sensual in its way. There is no such thing as a rational, controlled, intellectual Gospel, that's for sure. It is true that many religious expressions, and spiritualist expressions, are hysterical in the close definition of the word. But in that specific sense one would also have to view, for example, the Jewish Prophets, all that Ramakrishna ever said and did, the whole 'science' of Bhakti Yoga, various branches of Tantra, which is to say a huge portion of what happens in human beings.

There is a world of difference between Ramakrishna's activities and Gospel singing. One is powered by knowledge, individual understanding, and the remarkable achievement of piercing Maya; the other is blind, primitive, despairing, taking refuge in communal bonding and communal euphoria.

When I look at Gospel performers singing and clapping their hands with big smiles, I don't see a celebration of life. What I see is a group of people unified into a mob and celebrating their collective intention to be as mindless and irrational as possible.

And we wonder why Africa is such a basket case.

Also, there are people---I know some---who are simply wired emotionally. That is really all there is to it. They don't deal with the world through their rational centers. They experience life, they seem to take things into their body, into their whole being.

That's true, but it doesn't mean that we should falsify the nature of the spiritual path purely for the sake of including them.

We need to accept that life isn't fair. Truth doesn't bend simply because we want to entertain notions of fairness.

Dogs and cats are wired to be animalistic and mindless, and they have as little chance of becoming enlightened as emotional people do. We need to respect this - both for their sake and for the truth's sake.

You, in your branch of spirituality, instead of 'working with' all the parts of yourself, seem to just cut yourself off from it. This is not just a minor thing, a mild suppression---it is major. You propose a complete cutting oneself off from the human world.

No, just the insane elements of it.

In the past, the human race practiced cannibalism, ritual sacrifice, socially-sanctioned pedophilia, slavery, apartheid, genocide, etc. Were the individuals back then who spoke against such activities and demanded the human race give them up simply trying to "cut themselves off from the human world"?

-Nikki-I don't know that Tomas is in especially good graces with anyone.

-tomas ice-skates in-Other than David, Kevin and Dan, what the heck does it matter how an enlightened (illumined) fellow is "supposed to" conduct himself within the confines of Robert's Rules of Order?

-Shahrazad begins-He said he was, and David Quinn confirmed it, without using those exact words. You need to pay more attention.

-tomas roller-skates in-I'd have to find what thread was responding in (perhaps one of Ryan's) where I employ a type of -reverse psychology- to delve for a deeper response from some of the more rigid posters here at Genius Forums.

As far as Ryan goes, he has "potential" as a philosophical genie, just needs to lose all that 'robots are the wave of the future'. Heck, the automobile is one of the three supreme inventions of all time. Obviously, the airplane (in all its manifestations including outer space travel) is a plus, plus. Finally, the submarine (aka modern surface shipping) reigns supreme. Robotics are obviously the wave, but living in the here-and-now takes precedence, in my book anyway.

-Nikki-His contributions are mildly entertaining at best.

-tomas-I look to put a moral-to-the-story in most every post, but my mild-to-poor (very limited) writing skills puts a crimp in some of the intended meanings I postulate to be true to my understanding .. come across better "in person" but the format in internet-ville has some very backward limitations and ever-more-glaring when I type at 15-words-per-minute .. tops.

-Back to Shahrazad-Not so. At worst I find them quite entertaining. At best they are good enough to ROFL.

-tomas-Well I have some favorites here to go after, but it's to "prick at" their inner consciousness that a few here prefer to keep in their shell-of-a-box.

Mikiel doesn't handle it too well, but he's an old fart, so that is understandable (plus he's a married man).

Ryan is a bizarre poster, but he's still a young-enough whippersnapper, and some good potential, but the constant drivel of women being subordinated to the back of the bus is a tad over the top

PS - Alex is a breath of fresh air :-)

PPS to Shahrazad - I failed to comment earlier, Shah, that it is my 10-year-old daughter that reads here, not the girlfriend (though she leans over the monitor now and then when Dan and/or David are in The Crucible having a go at it with a couple of the knuckleheads that rear their mojo..

More later, when the spirit permits..

Edited for misspelled word.

.

Last edited by Tomas on Mon Aug 18, 2008 12:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.